“Cured meats and sausages and even the lauded Jamón have been defined as carcinogenic”, sorry but this is not exact. Under this prisma french fries, pickles and aloe vera are also carcinogenic
Not really: Bouvard V, Loomis D, Guyton KZ, Grosse Y, Ghissassi FE, Benbrahim-Tallaa L, Guha N, Mattock H, Straif K; International Agency for Research on Cancer Monograph Working Group. Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat. Lancet Oncol. 2015 Dec;16(16):1599-600. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00444-1: the international community is agreeing that red and especially processed meats are in carcinogenic group one - to be avoided or reduced to a very occasional consumption.
Yes I know this article very well and it says that: "A meta-analysis of colorectal cancer in ten cohort studies reported a statistically significant dose–response relationship, with a 17% increased risk (95% CI 1·05–1·31) per 100 g per day of red meat and an 18% increase (95% CI 1·10–1·28) per 50 g per day of processed meat.12". And it also says: "The Working Group classified consumption of red meat as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A)". But yes, processed red meat was included in group1, the bad guys one. So, your affirmation is inexact, because is very different to say that something is straightforward carcinogenic than saying that consuming more than X g daily, and for that every day of your life, of some substances increase the probability to suffer cancer in a X%. Correlation does not implies causation.
They said that because the tuna is caught and then kept for a while to be fed and fattened, they can perform veterinary analyses pre and post mortem, they always guarantee that the mercury content is way below the permitted threshold (which is still “too much” for me, but every once in a while I can still accept it).
“Cured meats and sausages and even the lauded Jamón have been defined as carcinogenic”, sorry but this is not exact. Under this prisma french fries, pickles and aloe vera are also carcinogenic
Not really: Bouvard V, Loomis D, Guyton KZ, Grosse Y, Ghissassi FE, Benbrahim-Tallaa L, Guha N, Mattock H, Straif K; International Agency for Research on Cancer Monograph Working Group. Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat. Lancet Oncol. 2015 Dec;16(16):1599-600. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00444-1: the international community is agreeing that red and especially processed meats are in carcinogenic group one - to be avoided or reduced to a very occasional consumption.
Yes I know this article very well and it says that: "A meta-analysis of colorectal cancer in ten cohort studies reported a statistically significant dose–response relationship, with a 17% increased risk (95% CI 1·05–1·31) per 100 g per day of red meat and an 18% increase (95% CI 1·10–1·28) per 50 g per day of processed meat.12". And it also says: "The Working Group classified consumption of red meat as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A)". But yes, processed red meat was included in group1, the bad guys one. So, your affirmation is inexact, because is very different to say that something is straightforward carcinogenic than saying that consuming more than X g daily, and for that every day of your life, of some substances increase the probability to suffer cancer in a X%. Correlation does not implies causation.
Hi,
did they mention why Ballfegó tuna is lower in heavy metals?
Thanks in advance & regards.
They said that because the tuna is caught and then kept for a while to be fed and fattened, they can perform veterinary analyses pre and post mortem, they always guarantee that the mercury content is way below the permitted threshold (which is still “too much” for me, but every once in a while I can still accept it).
Understood. Thanks a lot for the explanation.